Fortunately we now have an eyewitness. Ngayon, kailangan magdemanda na agad ang justice department. You can finish you preliminary investigation in 24 hours if you have a piece of direct evidence and an eyewitness testimony is direct evidence--it does not need to be corroborated. As late as September 2010, the Supreme Court's ruling in Lumanog v People said it is not necessary to corroborate the testimony of an eyewitness for as long as he is credible. What is the meaning of credible or sincere? The Supreme Court in another case said maniniwala kami na totoo ang kanyang sinasabi maski iisa lang ang testigo basta nakita niya ng sariling mata niya. The eyewitness provided, number one, that he is unhesitating. Wala siyang kaduda-duda, sige lang siya ng sige magsalita. [Pangalawa,]Ang kanyang testimony ay straightforward, dere-derecho siyang magsalita at [pangatlo] nagbibigay siya ng mga detalye. All of these criteria are met by the lone eyewitness Rabusa.

Ngayon, sasabihin mong si Rabusa ay mag-isa lang na testigo, di ba dapat ay meron namang ibang testigo? No. The Supreme Court said an eyewitness if he has testified does not need to be corroborated for as long as, as I've said, he's honest, sincere in the sense that his testimony is unhesitating, straightforward, and gives details. Eto namang si Rabusa ay puwedeng mag-apply as state witness kasi he complies with the requirements for a state witness. The requirements are, number one, his testimony is absolutely necessary. Number two, there is no other direct evidence. Number three, he has to comply with the criteria that he is not the most guilty. And he also should not have been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude. Kaya viral na itong kurapsyon sa military. Problema ni Reyes masyado siyang sclerotic.